Subject: [homenet] 答复: MPvD use cases in homenet

From: Liang Geng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 22:26:20 +0800

Dear all,

An updated version for draft-geng-homenet-mpvd-use-cases is uploaded:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geng-homenet-mpvd-use-cases/

This version clarifies the PvD associated with particular interfaces and
services (applications) and refines the given MPvD configuration examples. 

I would very much like to discuss this in the coming meeting and please do
not hesitate to comment in the mail list.

Best wishes,

Liang

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: homenet [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Liang Geng
发送时间: 2015年3月9日 23:15
收件人: [email-masked]
主题: [homenet] MPvD use cases in homenet

Hello everyone.

I initiated a draft on the MPvD use cases in homenet. The multihomed and
multi-subnet characteristic of homenet make PvD a good candidate for
independent and flexible domain-based network configuration. The purpose of
the document is to summarize the potential adoption use cases of PvDs in
homenet. Types of PvD-aware nodes are given referring both to the model in
MPvD architecture and the homenet model, for the purpose of creating PvDs
for individual interfaces and services. Examples of PvD arrangement are also
given for both singlehomed and multi-homed scenario.

Since these are very initial thoughts, the delivery of PvD information
within Homenet is only briefly discussed in this draft. I am still working
on the possible HNCP implementation for this purpose. Discussion is more
than welcome on this.

Comments are extremely welcome. Thanks a lot!

Best wishes,

Liang

_______________________________________________

homenet mailing list

 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 19:27:01 +0200

Thank you for raising this topic, Liang.

>From Homenet's (and HNCP's) perspective, I think the simplest thing to do
here is pass all information down to the host as transparently as possible
and let it make the decision on what to do.

More specifically, for each ISP there is at least one Provider-Assigned
IPv6 prefix, and for each of these IPv6 prefixes there are associated
parameters that ultimately must be communicated to the hosts attached to
any given link within the homenet. HNCP simply does what it already does
with multiple prefixes, except that it is called a PVD now and includes
whatever information the PVD needs to carry that it learned from the ISP
uplink (or elsewhere) including DNS information, the IPv6 Provider-Assigned
IPv6 prefix itself, etc). This way, individual ISP connections can be
easily be supported by different edge routers (something that I did not see
covered in your document at all?), and you don't have to try and merge PVD
info together unless you really need or want to (and this would be done by
the router that is actually assigned to provision a host).

I'm not certain how much of this is mif's job and how much it is
homenet's....  But, certainly the idea that we have a PVD delineated per
unique ISP prefix needs to be well understood by both WGs, and we also need
to be able to carry that information through HNCP as well.

Comments?

- Mark

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Liang Geng <[email-masked]> wrote:

> for individual interfaces and services. Examples of PvD arrangement are
> also given for both singlehomed and multi-homed scenario.
>
>
>
> [email-masked]
> [email-masked]